Tuesday Scholarly Notes
5/1/25
Kelly, J.N.D. (1978). "Chapter 3: The Scriptures." in Early Christian Doctrines, Revised Edition." (pp. 52-79). Harper San Francisco. (Personal Library)
Kelly notes that by the apostolic period, though the collection was not articulated as such, the Old Testament was agreed upon by Jews, and was quickly recognized by most Christians as their authoritative works as well (Kelly 1978, p. 52). The early Christians seem to have used the Septuagint including what we would now consider the Apocrypha rather than the more restricted Masoretic Text (Kelly 1978, p.
54). The Apocrypha were less favorably received in the East than in the West. By the fourth century those works were regularly removed from readings in the East. In the West, in most settings, they were included as Scripture (Kelly 1978, p. 55).
New Testament writings were recognized as Scripture at a very early period. Kelly cites Marcion, the second century heretic, as being the person who compelled Christians to make formal lists of what works belonged to a New Testament (Kelly 1978, p. 57). Kelly, evaluating this activity, notes that there is evidence of some recognized corpus of the New Testament prior to Marcion (Kelly 1978, p. 58). In any case, Marcion's rejection of some writings suggests a known collection from which some parts could be rejected. Kelly notes that the first actual list we have of our current New Testament works comes from Athanasius in 367, and that there was still ongoing debate about the contents into the sixth century (Kelly 1978, p. 60).
Kelly notes that Christianity adopted a view of inspiration of Scripture from Judaism and quickly applied it to the New Testament writings as well as the Old (Kelly 1978, p. 61). The nature of inspiration as understood by the patristic authors was generally that the writers were taken into an ecstatic state and had little or no control of how they wrote what they did (Kelly 1978, p. 62). After the rise of Montanism, however, Christian interpreters tended to assign more personal care and consciousness to the biblical authors (Kelly 1978, p. 63).
Issues of biblical interpretation were of considerable importance in early Christianity. In particular, the relationship of the Old and New Testaments was a matter of discussion (Kelly 1978, p. 64). A key interpretive element is seen in the canonical gospels as Chrsit and the evangelists treat the Old Testament as a Christian book, describing the Messiah (Kelly 1978, p. 65). This, then, is the pattern found in Acts and the epistles. A similar interpretation can be found in the post-apostolic authors as well. At times the interpretation of the Old Testament's symbolic references to Christ becomes more allegorical than most modern Chrsitians would like. Kelly describes a passage in the epistle of Barnabas (as interpreted by C.H. Dodd According to the Scriptures 1952, p. 9) in which Abraham's 318 servants show Christ. The Greek number 18 is IH, a common abbreviation of "Jesus." The number 300 is T, which looks like a cross (Kelly 1978, p. 66). Kelly goes on to note that such allegorical readings were not universal. There is a harmony between the Old and New Testaments. However, in general, the New Testament came to be seen as making the implications of the Old Testament more clear.
Typology and allegory are terms normally used to describe interpretive methods. Kelly suggests avoiding the term "allegory" as it is understood differently now than it was in the patristic period (Kelly 1978, p. 70). In allegory, the details of a narrative itself play a relatively unimportant role, as they intend to symbolize other spiritual truths. The exegete's job is to identify these spiritual truths and explain them. In contrast to allegorical reading, typological readings interpret the Old Testament events as prefiguring or anticipating those in the New Testament (Kelly 1978, p. 71). The historical context of a type was important in determining its fulfillment, or antitype.
Kelly observes that while typological exegesis became very normal within Christian teaching, allegorical exegesis was problematic. This is particularly the case in dealing with Marcionism and the various Gnostic movements, as they could pick and choose allegorical symbols to prove whatever they wished (Kelly 1978, p. 72). Allegorical interpretation was used in orthodox ways, particularly in Alexandria. However, it opened interpretive doors which could prove problematic (Kelly 1978, p. 73).
Kelly refers finally to a reaction against allegorical exegesis of every sort. This reaction was centered in Antioch during the fourth and fifth centuries (Kelly 1978, p. 75). These interpreters maintained that an adequate understanding of the text would be based on the facts of the text rather than a symbolic understanding of letters or numbers within the text. This emphasis led to typological interpretations but a rejection of allegory (Kelly 1978, p. 76). Symbolic language could be accepted as symbolic, but the Scriptures are normally located in literal times and events.
5/1/25
Kelly, J.N.D. (1978). "Chapter 3: The Scriptures." in Early Christian Doctrines, Revised Edition." (pp. 52-79). Harper San Francisco. (Personal Library)
Kelly notes that by the apostolic period, though the collection was not articulated as such, the Old Testament was agreed upon by Jews, and was quickly recognized by most Christians as their authoritative works as well (Kelly 1978, p. 52). The early Christians seem to have used the Septuagint including what we would now consider the Apocrypha rather than the more restricted Masoretic Text (Kelly 1978, p.
54). The Apocrypha were less favorably received in the East than in the West. By the fourth century those works were regularly removed from readings in the East. In the West, in most settings, they were included as Scripture (Kelly 1978, p. 55).
New Testament writings were recognized as Scripture at a very early period. Kelly cites Marcion, the second century heretic, as being the person who compelled Christians to make formal lists of what works belonged to a New Testament (Kelly 1978, p. 57). Kelly, evaluating this activity, notes that there is evidence of some recognized corpus of the New Testament prior to Marcion (Kelly 1978, p. 58). In any case, Marcion's rejection of some writings suggests a known collection from which some parts could be rejected. Kelly notes that the first actual list we have of our current New Testament works comes from Athanasius in 367, and that there was still ongoing debate about the contents into the sixth century (Kelly 1978, p. 60).
Kelly notes that Christianity adopted a view of inspiration of Scripture from Judaism and quickly applied it to the New Testament writings as well as the Old (Kelly 1978, p. 61). The nature of inspiration as understood by the patristic authors was generally that the writers were taken into an ecstatic state and had little or no control of how they wrote what they did (Kelly 1978, p. 62). After the rise of Montanism, however, Christian interpreters tended to assign more personal care and consciousness to the biblical authors (Kelly 1978, p. 63).
Issues of biblical interpretation were of considerable importance in early Christianity. In particular, the relationship of the Old and New Testaments was a matter of discussion (Kelly 1978, p. 64). A key interpretive element is seen in the canonical gospels as Chrsit and the evangelists treat the Old Testament as a Christian book, describing the Messiah (Kelly 1978, p. 65). This, then, is the pattern found in Acts and the epistles. A similar interpretation can be found in the post-apostolic authors as well. At times the interpretation of the Old Testament's symbolic references to Christ becomes more allegorical than most modern Chrsitians would like. Kelly describes a passage in the epistle of Barnabas (as interpreted by C.H. Dodd According to the Scriptures 1952, p. 9) in which Abraham's 318 servants show Christ. The Greek number 18 is IH, a common abbreviation of "Jesus." The number 300 is T, which looks like a cross (Kelly 1978, p. 66). Kelly goes on to note that such allegorical readings were not universal. There is a harmony between the Old and New Testaments. However, in general, the New Testament came to be seen as making the implications of the Old Testament more clear.
Typology and allegory are terms normally used to describe interpretive methods. Kelly suggests avoiding the term "allegory" as it is understood differently now than it was in the patristic period (Kelly 1978, p. 70). In allegory, the details of a narrative itself play a relatively unimportant role, as they intend to symbolize other spiritual truths. The exegete's job is to identify these spiritual truths and explain them. In contrast to allegorical reading, typological readings interpret the Old Testament events as prefiguring or anticipating those in the New Testament (Kelly 1978, p. 71). The historical context of a type was important in determining its fulfillment, or antitype.
Kelly observes that while typological exegesis became very normal within Christian teaching, allegorical exegesis was problematic. This is particularly the case in dealing with Marcionism and the various Gnostic movements, as they could pick and choose allegorical symbols to prove whatever they wished (Kelly 1978, p. 72). Allegorical interpretation was used in orthodox ways, particularly in Alexandria. However, it opened interpretive doors which could prove problematic (Kelly 1978, p. 73).
Kelly refers finally to a reaction against allegorical exegesis of every sort. This reaction was centered in Antioch during the fourth and fifth centuries (Kelly 1978, p. 75). These interpreters maintained that an adequate understanding of the text would be based on the facts of the text rather than a symbolic understanding of letters or numbers within the text. This emphasis led to typological interpretations but a rejection of allegory (Kelly 1978, p. 76). Symbolic language could be accepted as symbolic, but the Scriptures are normally located in literal times and events.
RSS Feed